The C-130J seems the most practicle low cost replacement. They could copy/move major systems. I think they are moving to guided weapons rather then even bigger / more guns. The A400m makes a bigger target too..

More C-130s? The Marines are busy arming their KC-130Js with Hellfires and 30mm cannons...

This business of Gucci MDS numbers for manufacturers is retarded and needs to stop. C-27J should really be C-27B, A-400m if it ever comes on strength should be something in the C-46-C-50 range. And don't get me started on the F-35/F24 thing.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 2):The C-130J seems the most practicle low cost replacement. They could copy/move major systems. I think they are moving to guided weapons rather then even bigger / more guns. The A400m makes a bigger target too.

Yes, the HellFire as mentioned in the previous reply. The A400 is not that long is it? Are you referring to it's girth?

Quoting Glideslope (Reply 4):Yes, the HellFire as mentioned in the previous reply. The A400 is not that long is it? Are you referring to it's girth?

Its fat.. at some point future "terrorists" / "freedom fighters" (depends on your position) might have a gatling gun too..

Quoting Spacepope (Reply 3):This business of Gucci MDS numbers for manufacturers is retarded and needs to stop. C-27J should really be C-27B, A-400m if it ever comes on strength should be something in the C-46-C-50 range

Quoting Keesje (Reply 2):Quoting Glideslope (Thread starter):
The A400 seems a good fit? Will there be a C-130J replacement?

The C-130J seems the most practicle low cost replacement. They could copy/move major systems. I think they are moving to guided weapons rather then even bigger / more guns. The A400m makes a bigger target too..

There is a proposed AC-27J concept for SpecOps. It won't carry the fire power of the current AC-130s, but it would be slightly faster. Of course it would also be easy to do the AC-130J, as Keesje suggests.

A gunship version of the A-400M could actually work well. It would be able to carry more ammo and have a longer station time (not counting air refueling) than today's AC-130s. But could you build a version with the 105 mm Howrzer some AC-130s carry? I don't know what the firing shock/recoil would do to the composet stringers. In the AC-130, that whole section is beefed up.

It would have to be something above a C-45 (the KC-45A was already assigned to the A-330MRTT last year). I don't think they will use designation C-46 or C-47 as both were famous WWII airlifters, and there are still flyable examples around. So, the next available would be a C-48, which may be assigned to the KC-767AT (unless the KC-767 was already designated with an MDS, which is possible), if it wins this coming year. That would leave the C-49 or C-50 designation avaialbe for an A-400M, under the US Military MDS designation system.

Don't forget, the US Military puts an MDS on all commerical freighter aircraft, too. For example, the B-747-400F is the C-33A.

Quote:"Separately, the Air Force Special Operations Command could resume pursuit of a gunship variant. AFSOC planned to buy 16 AC-27Js to 'complement' the much larger AC-130J, but cancelled the programme last year. The requirement for the aircraft still lives, however, Giordo says.

'I believe that the push [to restart the AC-27J acquisition] will be given directly by the special operations forces,' he adds. 'It will come from outside the corporate air force'."

Quote:"Meanwhile, Giordo is also confident that a current order for 38 C-27J Joint Cargo Aircraft for the US military 'is a starting point, as more are needed for homeland security/disaster response and irregular warfare.'

The US Air National Guard is expected to deploy its first C-27Js to Iraq in the second half of 2010, with Giordo expecting them to provide 'valuable data to define the right mix of [Lockheed Martin] C-130Js and C-27Js for the intra-theatre airlift mission'."

The AC-130 may go the way of the mammoth unfortunately. ATM the doesn't seem to be a AC-130U upgrade in the works, the AC-27J seems to be iffy at best. Even the Advanced Tactical Laser being developed for the AC-130 is looking like it wont get past the R&D phase.

As I said in my earlier reply, the Marines are going ahead with an AKC-130J. Give it time and watch the USAF evaluate what the Jarheads can do. No sense in running two paralel programs for now.

USAF has already tried to incorporate the 30mm Bushmaster on the AC-130U fleet, but had poor results. The 40mm is near unsupportable anymore, and the M-61s have been deleted for a long time. Basically all they are left with is the 105 and the 25mm rotary cannon. One wonders that witht he 105, would you actually get improvement with a 120mm mortar like proposed, or would a slew of Hellfires and SDB's be better?

Quoting Spacepope (Reply 14):USAF has already tried to incorporate the 30mm Bushmaster on the AC-130U fleet, but had poor results. The 40mm is near unsupportable anymore, and the M-61s have been deleted for a long time. Basically all they are left with is the 105 and the 25mm rotary cannon. One wonders that witht he 105, would you actually get improvement with a 120mm mortar like proposed, or would a slew of Hellfires and SDB's be better?

They could replace the old Bofors L/60 with the L/70 (faster rate of fire, longer range), or, they can try the Bushmaster III in place of the Bofors and the 25mm gatling gun.

Quoting Spacepope (Reply 3): The Marines are busy arming their KC-130Js with Hellfires and 30mm cannons...

I believe the Hellfires will be on wing monted hardpoints, eliminating the inboard external fuel tanks, the outboard hardpoints are for the refueling pods. Instead of the 30mm guns, I would stick with the 25mm gatling guns that are already proven effective on the AC-130s, and the Marines already use the 25mms, too. I don't think they have a 30mm gun, yet.

The problem with modifying the KC-130J to a gun ship is the limited amount of room in the cargo hold, unless the extra fuel tank is removed, then the guns installed. It would seem better to me for the USMC to order some USAF/ANG standard "slick" C-130J cargo haulers, then modify them into gunships, like the USAF has done for 40+ years now.

Or better yet, get some USMC crews qualified in the USAFAC-130s and fly their own missions in them. This has been done before with USAF crews flying USN and USMCEA-6Bs.

How are they going to do that? Hellfires come straight off the rail I think.... will the hardpoint be low enough to launch missiles between the two props? I realize there is a bit of a space there, just seems a fine line.

Quoting Dragon6172 (Reply 17):How are they going to do that? Hellfires come straight off the rail I think.... will the hardpoint be low enough to launch missiles between the two props? I realize there is a bit of a space there, just seems a fine line.

Sneaky marines, the left outboard pylon will be wired for munitions, the right pylon retains the tanker pod.

"Harvest Hawk Capability II involves mounting an M299 missile rack for 4 AGM-114 Hellfires and/or up to 16 DAGR laser-guided 70mm rockets to the left wing, in place of the left-hand aerial refueling pod. This leaves the left wing carrying the weapons and some fuel, while the right wing retains full aerial refueling capabilities."

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 16):and the Marines already use the 25mms, too. I don't think they have a 30mm gun, yet.

“While the Mk 44 Bushmaster II [30×173mm] and M230 Chain Gun [30×113mm] are both nominally 30mm, their cartridges are very different….There is a major difference in size, power, and range. The Mk 44 Bushmaster II has already been adopted by the US Navy and USMC for other applications…. The 30×173mm uses a heavier projectile with a larger explosive filling, and is fired at a higher velocity [which] should have a noticeable maximum range advantage. Perhaps it would be easier to fabricate a stable mount for the less powerful M230 than the Mk 44… M230 and its ammunition are also lighter and more compact.”